What the fuck does "speech integral to crime" even mean? It's not what caused it. It's retroactive involvement, which is legally bullshit and even if it harmed the privacy of the victim portrayed, the "harm" is either incidental or trivial and thus cannot be prosecuted. Even if we were to assume it should remain illegal over that to give people life sentences for it would be a proportionality violation. Plus outlawing this for such reasons violates substantive due process in that you're punishing people based off of assumptions rather than actual harm. Plus saying "demand creates supply" is circular logic.
Also, possessing child porno after the fact is not "exploitation". Exploitation in the context of internet child pornography means that you're using somebody for personal gain, be it financial or otherwise. That would imply that you either made it yourself, sold/had receipt from the producers directly involved, solicited someone into producing it or blackmailed someone for it. Not just "you found something online". I don't know, maybe I'm missing something.
Why is child porn even illegal?
Re: Why is child porn even illegal?
Child porn is illegal because in order for it to be made a child has to be raped/violated.
The supply demand argument makes sense. If I sell a toy for free and I discover that a lot of people want it, then that will intice me to make more and potentially monetize it in the future. In other words, the consumers are essentially saying "make more of this" by their actions. In the case of child porn, that could escalate towards more children being raped/violated, in potentially more harmful ways and for money. If child porn was discovered randomly without a supplier's knowledge then you could argue that the crime is victimless.
The exploitation part is a grey area. You could say that it is morally neutral to use photos of a child you know for gratification, as long as the child themselves don't know. The problem is that if the child does eventually know then you have technically harmed them by putting them in a position where they could discover your act.
My stance is that child porn being outlawed is justified, but the human attitude towards child sexualization in general is irrational to an extent. A child having sex with an adult should never be legal, but I don't see why child beauty paegents should be outlawed.
The supply demand argument makes sense. If I sell a toy for free and I discover that a lot of people want it, then that will intice me to make more and potentially monetize it in the future. In other words, the consumers are essentially saying "make more of this" by their actions. In the case of child porn, that could escalate towards more children being raped/violated, in potentially more harmful ways and for money. If child porn was discovered randomly without a supplier's knowledge then you could argue that the crime is victimless.
The exploitation part is a grey area. You could say that it is morally neutral to use photos of a child you know for gratification, as long as the child themselves don't know. The problem is that if the child does eventually know then you have technically harmed them by putting them in a position where they could discover your act.
My stance is that child porn being outlawed is justified, but the human attitude towards child sexualization in general is irrational to an extent. A child having sex with an adult should never be legal, but I don't see why child beauty paegents should be outlawed.
Last edited by oolhlh2 on Thu Feb 12, 2026 4:18 pm, edited 4 times in total.
-
Creature Bipedal
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2026 4:47 pm
Re: Why is child porn even illegal?
Details are here (chapter 6.2.6)«Welche Absichten stecken hinter all der Panikmache, den ganzen Übertreibungen, dem andauernden Bombardement mit immer neuen „Missbrauchs“-Fällen“, der gezielten Emotionalisierung des Themas und seiner Problematisierung, ohne dafür Belege liefern zu können? Vier Hauptmotive sind auszumachen, die alle auf gesellschaftliche Änderungen abzielen:
- Rückkehr zu einer konservativen Sexualmoral.
- Ablenkung von gesellschaftlichen Problemen.
- Mehr staatliche Kontrolle und Befugnisse.
- Eine radikal-feministische Machtausweitung.»
Online
Re: Why is child porn even illegal?
Well I mean anybody can just view something and download it. That doesn't tie you to the crime. In order for a crime to be a crime it requires causation. You didn't even read the OP.oolhlh2 wrote: Thu Feb 12, 2026 3:46 pm Child porn is illegal because in order for it to be made a child has to be raped/violated.
The supply demand argument makes sense. If I sell a toy for free and I discover that a lot of people want it, then that will intice me to make more and potentially monetize it in the future. In other words, the consumers are essentially saying "make more of this" by their actions. In the case of child porn, that could escalate towards more children being raped/violated, in potentially more harmful ways and for money. If child porn was discovered randomly without a supplier's knowledge then you could argue that the crime is victimless.
The exploitation part is a grey area. You could say that it is morally neutral to use photos of a child you know for gratification, as long as the child themselves don't know. The problem is that if the child does eventually know then you have technically harmed them by putting them in a position where they could discover your act.
My stance is that child porn being outlawed is justified, but the human attitude towards child sexualization in general is irrational to an extent. A child having sex with an adult should never be legal, but I don't see why child beauty paegents should be outlawed.
-
OnionPetal
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2024 12:04 pm
Re: Why is child porn even illegal?
Not at all. Ever heard of AI images? Or a drawing? Or fiction?oolhlh2 wrote: Thu Feb 12, 2026 3:46 pm Child porn is illegal because in order for it to be made a child has to be raped/violated.
Besides, if the most popular MAP communities over the past 20 years are any indication, most MAPs are not interested in sexual violence. There are plenty of forms of erotic media that (if legal) could be produced that do not involve the sexual violence you indicated. Most MAPs don't want to see that!
In the absence of a clear blueprint, a good imagination is essential.
-
HumanBeing
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:33 pm
Re: Why is child porn even illegal?
Marthijn Uittenbogaard explained the real reason why CP is currently illegal on his blog (marthijn.nl) back in 2019.
I'm going to copy-paste his blog post since his blog is unavailable right now (12-02-2026).
Studies about the harmfulness of sexual relations between minors and adults are usually ignored by the mass media. Which is strange, because 'pedosexuality' is one of the most popular items these days in the news.
The reason they ignore these studies is because many of such relations are harmless and if you only look at non-violent sexual acts between adults and children, then the harm almost disappears. Only secondarily harm can be found. Harm due to the very negative reactions of society.
In a research study done by Nel Draijer in the 1980s she found almost no harm in sexual relationships between adults and minors. The effect of such sex acts were almost not contributing to harm. She found other factors that contributed much more to the harm. Factors like parents that are addicted to alcohol, parents that are very authoritarian et cetera. The study by Draijer received a lot of media attention in the 1980s. But no one wrote about the harm of such relationships. They only wrote about the fact that so many girls were abused during childhood. She herself wanted to downplay this media sensationalist coverage, because her one in three are abused - if I remember correctly - was, because of a very broad definition of sexual abuse and that nuance was lost in much of the media articles.
In 2001 Han Israëls from the Maastricht University wrote a book about Nel Draijer's study. In this book (Heilige verontwaardiging - Meaning: Holy indignation) he pointed out that incest was almost not contributing to harm if you look at Draijer's own research. Han Israëls wrote "By far the most important factor for explaining differences in the trauma score is still having or not having a strict father. That explains around nine percent of the variation. Second comes having a sick, nervous mother, with an additional contribution of around six percent. The effect of incest - that is: sexual child abuse by relatives - is in the first report of Draijer on her research in fifth place (Draijer1988a table 9.21), with an additional contribution to the explained variation of about one percent (the explained variation increases from 0.22 to 0.23); in the dissertation of two years later, incest is placed in exactly the same table on exactly the same results, not in fifth but in eighth place, with an increase in the explained variance from 0.25 to 0.25, that is from (rounded) zero percent (Draijer 1990 p.407 table 11.5)."
Society does not want to know the truth. The mass media don't want to inform their public with the facts. So almost all research done concerning the harmfulness of sexual relationships between children and older people is ignored. And such research has almost become impossible these days, because universities just don't allow it. They get their money from governments. And the hands that feed...
Children having sex with each other is also a problem in today's society. We don't want that while it is not harmful. We try to withhold them from sexual activity with others. With older people it is illegal. With slightly older it is already a grey area concerning illegal or not. So only with someone that is almost the same age they are allowed to be sexual. But we keep an eye on them almost 24 hours a day when they are young. And we don't allow them to watch pornography (which many still do by the way). We teach them at schools to keep sex for later in a monogamist relationship. We do almost anything to keep them away from sex with others.
In the USA many children are in 'treatment' centers. Here they are mentally abused and brainwashed. It is terrible. But the mass media don't care much about these kids. In The Netherlands for instance they never write about them. They think: 'fuck those kids,' figuratively speaking. They just don't care. Children are sexual beings. To inform the public about this, we can let them see sexual active children: so called child pornography. But that is, like the censorship in the mass media about scientific studies concerning harm, not the intention. So we decided to make watching sexual active children illegal. Even virtual children enjoying sex is in many countries illegal. This all is pure censorship. It has nothing to do with child protection at all. No image or video except child pornography is illegal to watch. Videos where children are hurt, where they are victims of bombings, where they are murdered or naked running away from nuclear bombs or videos where they are dying because of a toxic gas attack: it is all legal to watch. I said it before and I say it again: child pornography would never be illegal to watch, if all children in it were hurt. It is only illegal to watch, because we want to deny the fact that children are sexual beings and that they can enjoy sex with others, no matter what ages.
With the control over children's bodies - the so called 'pedophiles' want to set them free and that is why they are the scapegoats of society - we control them almost totally. We can withhold them any rights. Many children have lost the right to freely roam the streets, to have any kind of privacy, to choose their own company, etc.
The right wing politicians in the US, Oceania and in Europe are on the rise for years. And the so called left and centrist parties have all shifted to the right. By using the pedo hysteria they will keep gaining influence. We have to let the truth in before it is all fascism around us. It has alraedy gone much too far. All the hate and intolerance in our societies. Only hateful and dishonest politicians are out there these days.
In the 1960s and 1970s we got much more sexual freedom. Many people don't like these freedoms and they try to slow it down or even convert this process. Many people like authoritarian societies. We must fight against totalitarian states that bans things to watch, that forbids associations that tell the truth, that allows violence to people that tell the truth and that wants to control the sexual lives of its citizens. All its citizens, because almost every adult is sexually attracted to minors (and many also to prepubescent children) and because every adult once was a child themselves. Research about the fact that many people are attracted sexually to minors, is also a thing the mass media don't want to inform the public about.
We must stop the repression of child sexuality. Encourage them - not forcing them - to be sexual is so much better to do.
- Marthijn Uittenbogaard, 2019-09-04
I'm going to copy-paste his blog post since his blog is unavailable right now (12-02-2026).
Studies about the harmfulness of sexual relations between minors and adults are usually ignored by the mass media. Which is strange, because 'pedosexuality' is one of the most popular items these days in the news.
The reason they ignore these studies is because many of such relations are harmless and if you only look at non-violent sexual acts between adults and children, then the harm almost disappears. Only secondarily harm can be found. Harm due to the very negative reactions of society.
In a research study done by Nel Draijer in the 1980s she found almost no harm in sexual relationships between adults and minors. The effect of such sex acts were almost not contributing to harm. She found other factors that contributed much more to the harm. Factors like parents that are addicted to alcohol, parents that are very authoritarian et cetera. The study by Draijer received a lot of media attention in the 1980s. But no one wrote about the harm of such relationships. They only wrote about the fact that so many girls were abused during childhood. She herself wanted to downplay this media sensationalist coverage, because her one in three are abused - if I remember correctly - was, because of a very broad definition of sexual abuse and that nuance was lost in much of the media articles.
In 2001 Han Israëls from the Maastricht University wrote a book about Nel Draijer's study. In this book (Heilige verontwaardiging - Meaning: Holy indignation) he pointed out that incest was almost not contributing to harm if you look at Draijer's own research. Han Israëls wrote "By far the most important factor for explaining differences in the trauma score is still having or not having a strict father. That explains around nine percent of the variation. Second comes having a sick, nervous mother, with an additional contribution of around six percent. The effect of incest - that is: sexual child abuse by relatives - is in the first report of Draijer on her research in fifth place (Draijer1988a table 9.21), with an additional contribution to the explained variation of about one percent (the explained variation increases from 0.22 to 0.23); in the dissertation of two years later, incest is placed in exactly the same table on exactly the same results, not in fifth but in eighth place, with an increase in the explained variance from 0.25 to 0.25, that is from (rounded) zero percent (Draijer 1990 p.407 table 11.5)."
Society does not want to know the truth. The mass media don't want to inform their public with the facts. So almost all research done concerning the harmfulness of sexual relationships between children and older people is ignored. And such research has almost become impossible these days, because universities just don't allow it. They get their money from governments. And the hands that feed...
Children having sex with each other is also a problem in today's society. We don't want that while it is not harmful. We try to withhold them from sexual activity with others. With older people it is illegal. With slightly older it is already a grey area concerning illegal or not. So only with someone that is almost the same age they are allowed to be sexual. But we keep an eye on them almost 24 hours a day when they are young. And we don't allow them to watch pornography (which many still do by the way). We teach them at schools to keep sex for later in a monogamist relationship. We do almost anything to keep them away from sex with others.
In the USA many children are in 'treatment' centers. Here they are mentally abused and brainwashed. It is terrible. But the mass media don't care much about these kids. In The Netherlands for instance they never write about them. They think: 'fuck those kids,' figuratively speaking. They just don't care. Children are sexual beings. To inform the public about this, we can let them see sexual active children: so called child pornography. But that is, like the censorship in the mass media about scientific studies concerning harm, not the intention. So we decided to make watching sexual active children illegal. Even virtual children enjoying sex is in many countries illegal. This all is pure censorship. It has nothing to do with child protection at all. No image or video except child pornography is illegal to watch. Videos where children are hurt, where they are victims of bombings, where they are murdered or naked running away from nuclear bombs or videos where they are dying because of a toxic gas attack: it is all legal to watch. I said it before and I say it again: child pornography would never be illegal to watch, if all children in it were hurt. It is only illegal to watch, because we want to deny the fact that children are sexual beings and that they can enjoy sex with others, no matter what ages.
With the control over children's bodies - the so called 'pedophiles' want to set them free and that is why they are the scapegoats of society - we control them almost totally. We can withhold them any rights. Many children have lost the right to freely roam the streets, to have any kind of privacy, to choose their own company, etc.
The right wing politicians in the US, Oceania and in Europe are on the rise for years. And the so called left and centrist parties have all shifted to the right. By using the pedo hysteria they will keep gaining influence. We have to let the truth in before it is all fascism around us. It has alraedy gone much too far. All the hate and intolerance in our societies. Only hateful and dishonest politicians are out there these days.
In the 1960s and 1970s we got much more sexual freedom. Many people don't like these freedoms and they try to slow it down or even convert this process. Many people like authoritarian societies. We must fight against totalitarian states that bans things to watch, that forbids associations that tell the truth, that allows violence to people that tell the truth and that wants to control the sexual lives of its citizens. All its citizens, because almost every adult is sexually attracted to minors (and many also to prepubescent children) and because every adult once was a child themselves. Research about the fact that many people are attracted sexually to minors, is also a thing the mass media don't want to inform the public about.
We must stop the repression of child sexuality. Encourage them - not forcing them - to be sexual is so much better to do.
- Marthijn Uittenbogaard, 2019-09-04
Exclusive MAP
Bisexual child-lover
Nobody in the world, nobody in history has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.
Bisexual child-lover
Nobody in the world, nobody in history has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.